Change course in Iraq.

Byline: The Register-Guard

All terrorism is reprehensible, but Tuesday's truck bombing of the United Nations outpost in Iraq was a particularly vile assault on humanity.

The United Nations was engaged in a largely humanitarian mission in Iraq and, unlike occupying U.S. and British coalition forces, has been welcomed by beleaguered Iraqis. The attack's victims included the top U.N. envoy in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, a brilliant diplomat who had overcome extraordinary obstacles to win the trust of not only U.S. officials, but a broad and fractious array of Iraqi political, religious and tribal leaders.

Many attacks in Iraq have been aimed at undermining coalition efforts to rebuild Iraq, but Tuesday's bombing was different - it was an affront to all of the U.N.'s member nations. It was also an affront to the Iraqi people, whose lives Vieira de Mello and his colleagues were seeking to improve.

Such a ruthless attack demands a determined response by the U.N., which must not be deterred from international relief efforts. It also demands a recalibration of strategy by the United States, which should now shift the direction of its efforts to bring peace and stability to Iraq.

Since the invasion, the Bush administration has refused to yield any portion of its ironclad control over the rebuilding of Iraq to the United Nations. Conversely, many U.N. members, particularly European nations that wield strong influence in the Security Council, have refused Bush's invitations to send peacekeeping troops or provide other assistance. They don't want to validate the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq, and they believe that the rebuilding of Iraq should be accomplished under U.N. authority.

In the wake of Tuesday's attack, the administration should drop its resistance to a larger U.N. role in Iraq. Other nations should, in turn, accept a greater role in the pacification and reconstruction.

Such a change will require a major shift in the thinking of the Bush administration, which so far has bungled the work in postwar Iraq by underestimating troop and spending requirements and rejecting the idea of international leadership through the United Nations.

U.S. military and congressional leaders have begun to speak out on the need for additional troops in Iraq. A stronger military presence is indeed necessary, but it should take the form of an internationalized peacekeeping force that can ease the military and financial burden on the United States and that can draw the world community into the job of creating a democratic Iraq.

The Bush administration should also be more candid with Congress and the American people about the investment in time, money and manpower that will be required to get the job done in Iraq. While the price tag promises to be high, it can be reduced substantially by opening the door to international involvement.

As for the United Nations, the dangers illustrated by Tuesday's bombing and lingering resentment of the Bush administration's unilateralism should not deter the organization from taking on a greater role. The Security Council cannot ignore Iraq's strategic location and vast oil reserves, but, more importantly, should recognize its responsibility for sanctions that hobbled Iraq's economy for more than a decade.

Meanwhile, there are worrisome signs that post-war Iraq is drawing radical Islamic terrorists who view post-war Iraq as a prime opportunity to attack American interests. The attack on the U.N. headquarters and the one on the Jordanian Embassy two weeks ago that killed 17 people suggest that Iraq may be attracting al-Qaeda and other terrorists who promise to bring the attacks to a new and even more frightening level than has been achieved by Saddam loyalists. If these indeed are the acts of global terrorism, then they demand an international response by the United Nations.

Tuesday's deadly bombing makes it clear that a huge and dangerous challenge lies ahead in Iraq - a challenge that requires a dramatically increased United Nations role and leadership.